How does something as immaterial as consciousness come from unconscious matter?
>>>/lit/
>>>/his/
>>7909605
>something immaterial
Sit the fuck down, clown.
>>7909605
Maybe it doesn't and a certain kind of consciousness uses (modifies) matter to express itself?
>>7909605
As long as there is no evidence against it, I tend to side with dualism
>>7909625
quantum consciousness obviously, but this answers nothing.
>>7909605
Fuck these threads man
>>7909820
simple lack of a counterexample does not a proof make
>>7909605
How the fuck is consciousness immaterial?
>>7910504
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>>7910514
I want to see cold hard logic not muh philosophy feels.
>>7909605
>asserting that consciousness is immaterial
>asserting that the matter which makes up conscious agents is unconscious
These are HUGE assumptions and the burden of proof is on you to prove them.
>>7910299
There is absolutely zero evidence of quantum properties being utilised anywhere in the brain. Not only that, but it's probably near impossible for anything like that to happen. Neurons and synapses are just way to big and hot to hold coherent quantum states.
>>7910498
This.
Also, Occam's razor.
>>7910527
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29#Arguments_for_dualism
>>7909605
occam's razor: qualia is most likely a property of matter
>>7910561
What the fuck does "property" even mean in this context?
>>7909605
Define "material", "matter", "consciousness" and "thing". Then explain why you posted an image of a bald guy with a bulb inside of his head, as if whatever is inside it was somehow related to what you wanted to discuss.
I bet $10 that you don't even understand the concepts you're using.
>>7910644
dumb wolf poster
>>7910655
>>7910299
People look quantum physics and consciousness, and think they have to go together, as they are two big magical unknowns. Whereas there is actually no implications that it would be so. I myself, made that mistake before. But that was before I actually started to think about it. More I thought, less likely it seemed so. Consciousness is still big unknown, and it doesn't make sense, so in practice everything is possible though.
Quantum vibration of microtubules is pretty much proven, not to cause consciousness. MIT professor has calculated that those vibrations are too brief to be result of cognitive functions. Microtubules are also found everywhere from the body as well as from plants. Since consciousness is so well linked to brains, it would be very unlikely to be caused by microtubuluses.
Physical damage (accident or surgery for example) to the brain causes changes in consciousness. That pretty much proves that there has to be physical element in the play. As well as somewhat ties it to the brain. I would go as far as say, that there is lots of evidence that link consciousness to be physical and next to none, to link it to be immaterial.
Only thing, why consciousness can be thought as immaterial, is because it's unbelievable nature. It makes sense as little as our existence, because we don't understand it yet. History of science has proven that explanations are always coherent and logical, not magical (except in scientific sense) and immaterial. I much rather believe consciousness to be material and be proven wrong than other way around, because it is simply much more likely.
And remember kids, universe can be magical place without a God too.
>>7910552
>There is absolutely zero evidence of quantum properties being utilised anywhere in the brain.
The entire brain functions off of quantum mechanics nigger.
>>7910504
What the fuck is even immaterial? It's ill defined. You can't define something purely on what it isn't. If you ask me what a dog is, and I say "not a cactus", would that help define what a dog is? What is immaterial? Sounds like something that doesn't exist. If someone isn't made of anything it seems it's the same as nothing.
>>7911282
Penrose made the classic mistake of venturing into an alien field with a false sense of confidence. Something a lot of academic shits seem to do in old age. I say this because he is partially responsible for the microtubles meme.
>>7911300
>functions off of
>off of
imbred urban redneck retard detected
Consciousness does not "come from" unconscious matter, it merely interacts with unconscious matter.
>>7909605
did yawé shot immaterial cum in marie ??????
if we can turn cum immaterial can we make another jésus ?????
>>7909605
Can you show its immaterial? Can you define conciousness?
Noone knows how it works yet, stop making shit up.
>we have no information
>therefore its propably magical and mysterious
>>7909701
>>7909820
>>7910299
>>7911703
Stop talking shit.
>>7911862
Its immateriality is an accepted fact. Look up the thought experiment Mary's Room.
>>7911873
>thought experiment
>established fact
You seem to not know how scientific facts are established. Stop talking shit.
>>7911862
>Noone knows how consciousness works yet
>consciousness
You mean your brain interpreting the world? Low IQ confirmed
>>7911890
Science uses thought experiments all the time, see for example relativity. The truths derived from thought experiments are logical truths and thus even stronger than scientific facts.
>>7911873
That's just the premise you're trying to prove dressed up as a story. If it's a "fact", prove it true.
>>7911901
There is no argument against Mary's Room. Show me one flaw with the thought experiment.
>>7911899
>theory
>stronger than scientific fact
Weow we've gone full retard
>>7911899
Relativity was confirmed through a massive ammounts of experimentation. You are seriously ignorant. Stop talking shit.
>>7911873
>He would know exactly what the microscopic structure of ammonia must be; but he would be totally unable to predict that a substance with this structure must smell as ammonia does when it gets into the human nose. The utmost that he could predict on this subject would be that certain changes would take place in the mucous membrane, the olfactory nerves and so on. But he could not possibly know that these changes would be accompanied by the appearance of a smell in general or of the peculiar smell of ammonia in particular, unless someone told him so or he had smelled it for himself.
We now make the assumption that this person is truly gifted, here goes.
1. He knows the reaction that takes place in the nerves and the whole thing that goes on there in the brain
2. He knows where these experiences register in the brain etc. etc. etc.
3. He can now compare that impulse to already existing memories of impulses and imagine that feeling, therefore experiencing it. (E.g. you can imagine the taste of strawberry, you can imagine the taste of citrus, you've probably never tasted them at the same time (and if you have, try something you haven't) and now think of them both at the same time, you get a pretty good rough approximation. A perfect human being gets a perfect experience.)
>>7911873
Thought experiments are based on prior information and knowledge. Science aims to obtain new information and new knowledge to get rid of delusions of knowledge.
Also, Mary obtained new knowledge because she perceived: With her eyes. And the her brain interpreted the information. Qualia, immaterial things, and other such things are not necessary to understand her conduct. It was a physical process.
>>7911899
Only assuming the axioms are true and relativity works with Euclidean geometry. In a few decades this theory will be crushed, pulverised and turned into food for cattle, because that's just how the scientific process is.
>>7911908
>1+1=2 holds always true
You need to learn some abstract algebra.
>Einstein derived relativity purely theoretically.
[citation needed]
>>7911904
Why are you such a narrow-minded grump?
>>7911910
>you can imagine the taste of strawberry
Only if you experienced it before. Only from knowing the chemistry of strawberry theoretically, you cannot derive how it tastes.
>>7911919
Having experienced it before is not necessary. All you need to do is to figure out the difference in your brain caused by the experience (e.g. neurons re-arranging themselves to store that memory), perform brain surgery on yourself because you are Mary(-Sue) up in this bitch and then you summon that memory that you now artificially created by manually re-arranging neurons.
>>7911911
>Mary obtained new knowledge because she perceived
Read the experiment again. If the knew knowledge she obtained was purely physical, than it wouldn't be new to her because she knew everything physical about colors.
>relativity works with Euclidean geometry
no, wrong
>You need to learn some abstract algebra.
I know enough abstract algebra.
>[citation needed]
any text on the history of relativity
>>7911921
>All you need to do is to figure out the difference in your brain caused by the experience
To add to this because I forgot to say it, you can just logically figure this out without the experience ever being needed. You can just start by saying "Okay, red is this wavelength, creating this impulse, creating this thing, followed by this thing", keep going until you know what neuron changes would logically happen, etc.
>>7911921
This would be "experiencing it" though. Whether the experience comes through the eyes or from stimulating certain nerves is irrelevant. The point is that the subjective quality of the experience itself cannot be predicted without making the experience.
>>7911926
This won't tell you the subjective quality of experience though. I think you didn't get the point of the thought experiment.
>>7911908
Just blatant garbage. It immideately accounted for many unexplained phenomena, but also was not considered FACT until it was proven sufficiently.
and 1+1=2 is not a real world fact, it works because of assumptions made. In nature, 1+1 can literally be 3, like when parents have kids. Or 1+1 can be 0 when you add one proton and one antiproton. You're an idiot.
Stop talking shit.
>>7911934
>1+1=2 is not a real world fact
>In nature, 1+1 can literally be 3
>>7911934
. + . = ..
>>7911903
>There is no argument against Mary's room
>Goes to wikipedia
>List of arguments against Mary's room takes up most of the article
k.
>>7911924
>If the knew knowledge she obtained was purely physical, than it wouldn't be new to her because she knew everything physical about colors.
What I meant was that the "knowledge" is stuff inside her brain.
>no, wrong
Yeah, I had a brain fart. I meant to say that it worked with non-Euclidean geometry.
>I know enough abstract algebra.
No, you don't.
>1 + 1 = 2 is always true
It depends on the definition of the terms. It's tautological. It may as well be the case that 1 + 1 = 1 (Boolean algebra)
Mathematics is based on axioms that we have formed from observation and reasoning.
>any text on the history of relativity
I just checked. It was equations, not thought experiments. Well, it's close enough. I will concede you this point.
>>7911927
>>7911929
>subjective experience
Knowing other people's subjective experiences is not necessary. We have neuropsychology.
>>7911934
>1+1 can literally be 3
wut?
>>7911929
>>7911927
>I think you didn't get the point of the thought experiment.
I think you don't understand what I'm saying.
1. You calculate the effects of the red wavelength in your eye and the experience it would create, therefore storing a memory of it. You don't need to experience anything, just use logic to figure out the the process. This process, now, is the actual "experiencing the color red for the first time." Sort of like your brain running the calculation 11+12 for the first time.
Experiencing the color red for the first time is just what happens when your brain, for the first time, runs this process. It is completely physical and not immaterial. That is the point.
>>7911937
And each of them is being refuted in the article.
>>7911943
Are we reading the same article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
>>7911934
>Or 1+1 can be 0 when you add one proton and one antiproton.
That's actually 1+(-1), though.
>>7911938
>What I meant was that the "knowledge" is stuff inside her brain.
Yet she experiences something new when she sees colors for the first time. So there must be something which wasn't just "stuff in her brain".
>No, you don't.
I studied algebraic topology, algebraic geometry and algebraic graph theory. i really don't need more algebra.
>It may as well be the case that 1 + 1 = 1 (Boolean algebra)
Don't be intentionally obtuse. Don't pretend to be autistic. You know what I meant with 1+1=2.
>Knowing other people's subjective experiences is not necessary.
1. It's not even about other people's subjective experience. Mary literally cannot predict her own on a purely theoretical/scientific basis, unless she made the experience herself.
2. The question of scientifically tackling subjective experience is the key question in the dualism vs physicalism debate, and remains unsolved, while thought experiments suggest that it may never be solved.
>>7911942
>You calculate the effects of the red wavelength in your eye and the experience it would create
Except the thought experiment tells you that it is impossible to predict the subjective experience from only knowing what the light will cause in your brain.
>>7911949
Except that isn't 1+1. That is actually billions upon billions of motions that eventually results as that that we see that certain particles there have re-arranged themselves in such a way that these particle constellations count as what human beings call "rabbits".
I hate the fact that even after saying this you will most likely just say "SEE!?!?! 1+1=3 because I put two rabbits in a cage and now we have a third rabbit!1!1!"
>>7911951
Depends if i count 1 as just a particle. Thats what I'm saying, it depends on how you use it. real world phenomena don't just allign themselves with whatever you thought up in your head. It has to be confirmed by experiment,
>>7909717
kek
>>7911960
>Except the thought experiment tells you that it is impossible to predict the subjective experience from only knowing what the light will cause in your brain.
That is literally, objectively wrong. In reality it's possible to do that, just not practically possible because we lack the equipment and the knowhow. Assuming you have PERFECT knowledge of the position of every single particle in the brain (and we are now, for the sakes of everyone's sanity, assuming that quantum physics doesn't interfere with this, which it realistically wouldn't) and you then figure out what happens when a certain wavelength of a particle enters the eye, triggers a certain nerve impulse which triggers a certain process (This process IS the subjective experience itself.) and then you see it's completely physical. Therefore you know what that process is like without ever running that process, you would know the end result of it, and assuming you are indeed "infinitely" gifted, you could therefore understand what it would feel like to experience that experience without experiencing it. Yes, you didn't experience that experience without experiencing it, because that's not necessary, the point is that it is completely physical, which counters your point when you say it's immaterial. It is a material thing.
TL;DR the subjective experience is the process run by your brain, which is physical, which is material, which counters your point.
>>7911976
You just repeated your assertion without substantiating it. There is still no way to observe subjective experience in the brain. As you already admitted, it is impossible to know another person's subjective experience. By the same reasoning you cannot predict your own subjective experience, unless you already made it. No matter how well you know the physical processes involved.
>>7909605
>immaterial as consciousness
implying
>>7911957
>Yet she experiences something new when she sees colors for the first time. So there must be something which wasn't just "stuff in her brain".
lol
>If a experience does not match another experience perfectly, then something thereof is not phsyical.
That "new experience" is an event in her brain.
>I studied algebraic topology, algebraic geometry and algebraic graph theory. i really don't need more algebra.
2 genius 4 me
>Don't be intentionally obtuse. Don't pretend to be autistic. You know what I meant with 1+1=2
Yes, what I meant was that the truth of the conclusion contingent on the truth of the premises. Your premises are false and you beg the question. Mathematics is axiomatised.
>Mary literally cannot predict her own on a purely theoretical/scientific basis, unless she made the experience herself.
The neuropsychological effect of perceiving light with a specific frequency with her eyes is different from the neuropsychological effect of reading theoretical books about wavelengths (duh).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism
>>7911971
>Depends if i count 1 as just a particle.
If you don't count 1 as a particle, then:
1. You have a proton. The name of the quantity of protons you have is one (1).
2. You have an antiproton. The name of the quantity of antiprotons you have is one (1).
Next up, we take in to account that these two have separate directions which are not the same. An antiproton is the opposite of a proton. Opposite in mathematics is marked as "-", which is called the minus sign.
1-1=0
If you do count 1 as a particle, then in a frozen point of time the quantity of the particles that there are is 2, because directions do not exist because we count them having the same direction as they are identical in their definition of being particles:
1+1=2
And they do not annihilate eachother because that process requires time. Assuming you let time flow, that's a separate thing because in order for that to work, directions need to be taken into account and your calculation of 1+1=0 is simply incorrect, not because "math is about definition" but because you didn't do things right.
>>7911981
>As you already admitted, it is impossible to know another person's subjective experience.
I never said this. I don't remember if I said this either, but this is my view on this subject:
You can know another person's subjective experience assuming that you can perfectly understand the process in the brain.
>>7911981
>There is still no way to observe subjective experience in the brain.
Equivalency: Subjective experience = process run in the brain and recorded by the brain
Therefore
>There is still no way to observe a process run in the brain and recorded by the brain
False.
>>7911981
>By the same reasoning you cannot predict your own subjective experience
You can predict the results in the brain because the subjective experience IS the process run in the brain, which is predictable.
>>7911981
>You just repeated your assertion without substantiating it.
My guess is that you don't understand / agree with the equivalency I already stated (Subjective experience = process run in the brain and recorded by the brain)
>>7911991
>An antiproton is the opposite of a proton
> An antiproton is the opposite of a proton
YES. If you adjust your mathematical model to better reflect reality, you have better premises, and better conclusions. Weird, that.
Doesn't change the fact that you adjusted your model using real world data though does it.
The naive assumption of just adding up particles does not work, but you only know that through experiment.
For fucks sake, how is this so hard to understand?
Every conclusion you come to HAS to be verified to count for anything, otherwise its just daydreaming.
>>7911999
>>7911981
Okay, my explanation might be a little lacking, so I'll try to explain it as simply as I can.
1. The knowledge of an experience is received once that experience is recorded by the brain
2. That experience is recorded when it happens
3. I can predict what happens in the brain because as the thought experiment states, I am "infinitely gifted" in this. I know the locations and the velocities of all particles in the brain and I can make the safe assumption that quantum physics will not interfere
This is probably the most difficult step, but just like with an electronic circuit, assuming I know everything about it, I know what will happen when a certain input is given to it.
4. By reversing this process:
A. I calculate and deduce what happens in each part of the brain when a certain count of particles with a specific wavelength enters the eye and triggers the domino chain of impulses. I also know which impulses are related to the red light and not just other processes in the brain. Therefore, I can tell how that experience itself works.
B. By knowing how the experience itself works, I can deduce what kind of changes it will make in the brain, what record the brain produces, and therefore what kind of knowledge it will create, because as stated, the experience creates the knowledge in the brain
C. I can manually introduce this knowledge to the brain by being performing brain surgery on myself (absurd, but possible with the assumptions made) without ever having experienced the event (a.k.a. ran the process in the brain)
D. I have knowledge of that event without having experienced it. This is the original point that was asked.
E. Therefore, we can conclude that the knowledge of that event is the physical rearrangement of neurons that the brain sets in motion, therefore all knowledge is physical.
>>7911999
>My guess is that you don't understand / agree with the equivalency I already stated (Subjective experience = process run in the brain and recorded by the brain)
Indeed, I do not agree because I have yet to see a convincing proposal how to derive subjectiv experience from neural processes.
>>7912001
I tried proving you wrong, but to be completely honest I'm not even sure what the fuck we're arguing about and that star more or less encapsulates my post
>>7912014
>I don't know how
>therefore magic
Lets recap how this idiotic arrogance of "i'm so great, i must be special!" helped us so far:
>"my wishful thinking manifests in the world! I can see the future and/or i'm a wizard! i'm special!"
>"humans are so great, we must be separate from animals and a special creation! we're special!"
but then evolution
>"humans are so great, we must be the center of the universe! we're special!"
but then heliocentric model
>"humans are so great, we are the only species with a moral compass! we're special!"
but then social behaviour in almost all animals
And today we have:
>"humans are so great, our minds must be magic stuff and not part of nature! we're special!"
I bet you're right this time. We must be special somehow, right? Right?
![Consciousness[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6WHokIH.jpg "Consciousness[1].jpg")
Kind of crazy, but I actually think panpsychism, even if it is meme tier, could actually be true.
what if consciousness creates matter, not the other way around? would eliminate the problem of how color can come from wavelength. Wavelength coming from color would be a more understandable conversion, in my opinion.
>>7912036
>what if consciousness creates matter, not the other way around? would eliminate the problem of how color can come from wavelength. Wavelength coming from color would be a more understandable conversion, in my opinion.
>>7912023
I'm saying the argument from a thought experiment is not proof, and comparing it to 1+1=2 is moronic.
As an example I tried to explain how stupid thought experiments can contradict even the 1+1=2 statement.
Putting two particles together does not necessarily result in two particles. Putting two (longeared) entities together does not necessarily result in two entities.
Thoughtexperiments mean nothing without confirmation.
Then you said "but if we revise the model according to what we know to be true about the real world, it corrects the result!".
Yes, yes it does. But it does not give thoughtexperiments the weight of proof or evidence. And it doesn't make 1+1=2 universally true in nature. Models, abstractions and daydreaming do not dictate reality.
>>7911300
You have no idea what quantum mechanics are, do you?
>>7912014
I can know that I perceive qualia, but how do I know that others do?
Is this even the point of this discussion? I think we are going off the track. Weren't we supposed to be deciding whether or not an instance of subjective experience can disprove physicalism?
So far, what I understand is that you have misunderstood physicalism. Physicalism is the theory that all phenomena can be explained in terms of material things. Subjective experience is a function of events in one's brain. Why does this not disprove your point?
>>7912030
le dank straw man xD
>>7912042
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
Get learned.
>>7911282
>People look quantum physics and consciousness, and think they have to go together, as they are two big magical unknowns.
>Only thing, why consciousness can be thought as immaterial, is because it's unbelievable nature. It makes sense as little as our existence, because we don't understand it yet.
Can you just post this in every fucking thread ever about this from now on so that one fucking weed smoker doesn't come like
"Dude, mysterious shit, you got fucking quantum mechanics, brains UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"
and use this as a way of reasoning that his favourite way of these things working is right?
>>7911827
>Electrochemical reactions are quantum as fuck.
Anon
No.
If it was all quantum, your brain would literally decide shit on multidimensional coin tosses a.k.a. just random my behaviour up senpai
>>7912049
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
>Get learned.
That's not my point. My point is that as soon as you bring this shit up, your thread is about to go full OH SHIT HERE WE GO
>>7912030
Well we are factually special. We evolved to be superior to all other species.
>implying anything is material or physical
What's the fundamental unit of the universe? If there isn't one, and there is an infinite set of substructures to be studied, then how are we experiencing things in this scale? What determines the behavior of anything? What is the definition of "thing"?
>it's this thread again
>>7912049
>Subjective experience is a function of events in one's brain
But it cannot be accounted for in purely physical terms.
>>7912046
>But it does not give thoughtexperiments the weight of proof or evidence.
Thought experiments are true though, ASSUMING that the premises are correct and they are treated correctly and logically, just like the thought experiment version of "but if we revise the model according to what we know to be true about the real world, it corrects the result!"
Any tool you use incorrectly won't do the job, so why assume maths will?
Speaking of which
>Putting two particles together does not necessarily result in two particles. Putting two (longeared) entities together does not necessarily result in two entities.
See the thing is that you're playing with time here. Of course it does "result" in two entities, because you DO HAVE two entities at that point of time. But the count of entities at one time might not be equivalent to the count of entities at another time.
>>7912046
>Models, abstractions and daydreaming do not dictate reality
A ton of shit has been predicted very accurately because of them. If they don't predict something correctly, it's not because the concept of models is wrong, it's because the person making the model wasn't perfect and made a mistake, leading to the models being flawed. Any model using correct premises, axioms, assumptions etc. and treating them correctly and logically will come to a correct result, it's just easier said than done and sometimes it's easier to just run the test than to try to predict the result using models that haven't been created yet and are hard to create.
TL;DR the model of mathematics doesn't have to be changed, you're just using it incorrectly. Mathematics, apart from a relatively few unsolved problems, will give you the right answer all the time if you use it right. It isn't a matter of adjusting things or changing your tools, it's a matter of knowing what tool to use.
>>7909605
Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of physical processes
But our understanding of these processes is an emergent phenomenon of our own mental processes.
This is why the mind seems "immaterial."
>>7912071
>Well we are factually special. We evolved to be superior to all other species.
But we do not work with special mechanics designed just for us, we just happen to have the best result out of the mechanics that living beings all share
>>7912078
>But it cannot be accounted for in purely physical terms.
Because we lack the ability to do so, not because it isn't so. Since that one guy has already been arguing with you about this and trying to prove it's "physical", can you present your idea of how things work in addition to physical stuff?
>>7912065
>My point is that as soon as you bring this shit up, your thread is about to go full OH SHIT HERE WE GO
wut
Speak right.
>>7912071
Define superior.
>>7912078
No, my point was not that subjective experience was physical but that it could be explained in physical terms (and even ignored altogether and replaced by a system, as part of a psychological model).
>>7912081
This.
>>7912088
>Speak right.
This will lead to a conversation that will quickly escalate if someone responds and disagrees.
>>7912073
>What's the fundamental unit of the universe?
You don't understand what a unit is, and the closest answer assuming we rewrite your question to talk about acting forces would probably end up being energy.
>>7912102
It's bait, right?
>>7912084
>But we do not work with special mechanics designed just for us
In some sense we do, except the mechanisms were not designed but we evolved them.
>Because we lack the ability to do so, not because it isn't so.
But maybe this ability is impossible because it isn't so.
>>7912088
>Define superior.
You know what I meant. Humans rule this planet and have the power to destroy everything.
>but that it could be explained in physical terms
This is where I disagree. I see no convincing argument why this should be the case.
look 'consciousness' is almost certainly an emergent feature of complex brain chemistry and not magical or a fundamental force of the universe ok, thanks
>>7911965
>now we have a "third rabbit"
Are you kidding me? What makes you think it's OK to even say third rabbit yourself? Is it out of convenience? No. There's a third rabbit.
>>7912105
What is energy made of?
>>7912127
Tulpa.
>>7909625
None of these
>>7912114
I think I get it now. I think I know the solution to your problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
I think that the obstacle was treating Mary as an object rather than a subject.
I think we have just come across a new problem: What is knowledge?
>>7912119
epic
>>7912143
>the obstacle was treating Mary as an object rather than a subject
well, she's a woman
>>7912065
>If it was all quantum, your brain would literally decide shit on multidimensional coin tosses a.k.a. just random my behaviour up
Of course it isn't "all quantum" any more than anything is. It's quantum at the scale of inspection where it's quantum. What even is quantum at macro scale?
>>7912065
>If it was all quantum, your brain would literally decide shit on multidimensional coin tosses a.k.a. just random my behaviour up senpai
But that IS how chemical reaction happen. When two molecules collide with each other, there is a certain probability that they will react based on quantum mechanics. The shape of molecules is determined by quantum effects. After all, they wouldn't even have shapes if it weren't for electrons being wavelike. This is why quantum chemistry is studied.
In a system as large and hot as a brain these effects all average out, but they're still there underpinning everything. Some people believe that in certain parts of the brain the quantum effects don't cancel and are an important part of the functioning of the brain, but even if that is false the chemistry is still entirely probabilistic, just like everything else in the universe.
>>7909605
In layman's terms, your consciousness is a bunch of chemical reactions taking place in your brain, essentially your brain is the organ of your consciousness. It's certainly biological and very material.
This isn't /x/, souls aren't real, and consciousness stops with brain death.
>>7912071
Absolutely not. We evolved as long as bacteria have. More complex? Yes. "Superior"? Fuck no. Stop talking shit.
>someone spends 5 seconds one saturday shitposting bait
>thread lasts until sunday
4chan, everyone
>>7909605
Because matter doesn't actually exist, faggot, it's all in your head.
>>7911300
Idiot.... Maybe your brain is so small that you have to use quatum mechanics to describe it.
>>7911827
Again, idiot....
I don't know if you remember your highschool physics lessons about electricity. Nobody ever needed quantum mechanics to describe why the hell my lamp lights up, idem for the brain to use electricity.
>>7911899
Please just stop with anything science related... I have heard the story of how people were trying to prove this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity)
> stronger than scientific facts.
.......................
>>7912211
You just keep on trying walking through walls with your quantum mechanical bullshit
Just because on a very small scale it decided by chances doesn't mean your brain works this way (you said yourself, on macro scale this just averages out).
And even if you want to believe this, every fucking thing ever is random. This whole goddamned universe is just a coincidence etc etc
Please fuck off with your pseudo science knowledge and attend an actual university of some sort
>>7912105
>You don't understand what a unit is
You know that I'm talking of "things" or "structures" as we define them, so fuck off with your arbitrary corrections.
>immaterial
idealists get out my board
Out of the 74 threads I have viewed of this nature, exactly zero have had any posts giving a definition of consciousness.
>>7909605
Magnets.
>>7913739
There's not a definition of it yet.
And people here that think they're going to bring one that covers the truth are usually teenagers, mostly at shitty schools with low grades and no genuine interest in science other than lecturing atheist comments online.
>>7909625
Behaviourism
>>7913739
Yeah, you'd really think some poster on 4chan would be able to do what constant generations of thinkers have not.
If you hit somebody on the head you can knock them unconscious so it's all just brain function.
It's all just cells you morons.
"How does something as immaterial as a computer network come from non-digital matter?"
>inb4 I can fully explain computers
No. You can't. No one can reduce it from software back to atomic and electronic matter ineteraction, the gap between specialties in hierarchical levels has become too large. No single person fully understands computers.
>>7910561
Occam's razor is a proof used by small minded people to stop great minds from questioning, sorry senpai.
>>7913739
you are the consciousness, retard
Alright idiots, let me put this straight.
There will never be a perfect way to model the brain. It's simply impossible. Perfection is outside our grasp in this universe. To understand consciousness we would need this perfect model.
Science will then say it doesn't exist because it can't be tracked or proven and those less inclined to make all their decisions on pure logic will say it exists due to their subjective experiences.
>>7914608
How do you know, dingus, that the consciousness remains but the method of its connection to the material world isn't hampered.
X = consciousness
F() = brain
f(x) = how consciousness relates to the world
>>7914614
You know this for a fact?
>>7913703
Science needs both, senpai.
>>7912281
Prove it. Oh wait, you can't.
No one can. Let's stop making hasty decisions then.
>>7911529
> imbred
> im
Consciousness is truly mysterious. Anyone who thinks they have it figured out is delusional. The "it just arises from the physical functioning of the brain" arguments are even more hand wavey than the quantum arguments.
I don't think consciousness can be explained by classical physics what so ever. Quantum physics provides the most reasonable entry point to begin discussing consciousness, as quantum mechanics acknowledges the presence of an observer in a system. People like Ed Witten think that consciousness will never be fully explained, by any extension of modern physics, and that it is far more mysterious than we can even imagine.
>>7914987
what was that meme of a webm :^)
>>7914987
we are walking computers who have tricked ourselves into thinking were something beyond such, simple as that.
I could write paragraphs explaining this shit to you, but I've been on this board too long to realize it's possible to change anyone's mind on this subject.
>>7914775
You don't "know" but it's the simplest explanation. It doesn't posit a whole new unobservable realm of existence for example.
What happens to digestion when you die?
>>7914629
Are you trolling m8 or are you really this stupid? Of course can understand computers. Engineering them has been a subject of modern science for decades now.
All computers do is process information and regurgitate it in a communicable form via light on the screen. That's all biological brains do, information processing.
The problem where the "Software" is communicated is the difficult question.
There are species of underwater shrimp that can see in ultraviolet colors beyond human perceptions. We know this because we understand how the mechanics of vision and visual processing works and given their biology, they should theoretically be able to do this.
But it's impossible to articulate or experience thus far.
We don't have the technology to comply and decode the 'software' of consciousness.
If we could, we manipulate our brain chemistry to see these colors without even needing the equipment. Virtual reality would be possible and we'd be a step away from the the Wachowskis. But as it's impossible.
We fully understand computers. (We fucking design them you retard)
We can draw similar analogies to the human brain.
We cannot use the comparison to comprehend our brains yet.
And we cannot see how consciousness looks and interacts with matter anymore than one can get a grasp of Computer science and code via looking at electrical circuits and transistors. So we cannot look at the 'code', let alone whatever mystical screen it's sent to that appears in our brains.
We have the technology right now that can give blurry images of perception on a screen after scanning what a person is thinking/seeing, but it's so crude it can only tell us a reproduction of what brainwaves comply in reality, not how they do so.
>>7914987
What precisely makes you think it can't be explained by classical physics at all? Other than very large complexity what exactly makes you think we couldn't essentially be modeled as computers?
>>7914749
The fundamental flaw is inherent within your reasoning.
We cannot create a "Perfect" way to do anything because that concept doesn't exist in nature. Perfection is just semantics.
But we can better grasp different views of how the mind works and interacts with the physical brain. CAN. A variety of holistic approaches will give us a better idea of the psyche and how consciousness emerges.
Sadly brain science is becoming a dead end. The sheer scientism and hard-lined views of physicality have choked out any insight into the mind. Now most people think the brain and consciousness can be explained in terms of algebra and equations literally on a chalkboard.
No perfect model exist.
But if you're trying to understand something like feeling or orgasm with mathematical proofs you've done something wrong imo sempai.
>>7915056
There is something to the mind that is beyond mere computing, we're not automatons. The same cannot be said for the stomach or non-conscious organs.
However this argument fundamentally breaks down when one has to ask "How does one know they are conscious? How does one PROVE consciousness exist?"
And then scientifically explaining it is a mute point since most philosophies cannot define it's existence proper.
>>7915080
Will science ever reach a point of complexity that the brain is decoded and consciousness so mathematically certain, that we can even recreate subjective sexual desire and pleasure in inanimate machines? Could bitterness or abstract experience be programmed in?
>>7915076
I never said we can't be modeled by computers.
I think its very possibly actually. But I don't think these simulations would necessarily be conscious. It's possible, but unless it were some kind of quantum computer I think its unlikely.
Also don't confuse intelligence and behavior with consciousness. It's reasonable to have a machine which could model human behavior in every way, and not be conscious what so ever. This is basically the Chinese Room argument, although I think Searle is a fucking retard.
>>7915054
Yes this is essentially Julian Jaynes' theory. Consciousness is just a linguistic illusion. I don't buy it as an explanation for the "hard problem". It explains the "easy" problem of consciousness quite well, but I still don't see where subjective experience fits into it.
>>7915139
>Also don't confuse intelligence and behavior with consciousness. It's reasonable to have a machine which could model human behavior in every way, and not be conscious what so ever. This is basically the Chinese Room argumen
But in a sense it's true?
Even if a machine mimicked all the scientifically observable facets of consciousness it'd be impossible to "Prove" it's conscious or not conscious, so long as it states that it is and can demonstrate the surface claims of having qualia. (Describing them, whether it's really conscious of qualia or Chinese Rooming an analyzed description or not)
>>7915159
Guilio Tononi addresses this in his integrated information theory of consciousness. You can have a simulation of a conscious system, but unless the components of that system are integrated, it will not be conscious. Their behavior will be identical, but only one will be conscious according to Tononi.
One challenging aspect of Tononi's theory is that it quite fully separates consciousness from intelligence. You could have very "dumb" systems which are highly integrated, and therefore highly conscious. This is very challenging to our intuitive notions of consciousness.
>>7913090
>Maybe your brain is so small that you have to use quatum mechanics to describe it.
Theorem: /sci/ has no standards whatsoever.
Proof: >>7911934 ∎
Something that people miss about the Mind and consciousness is that, real or not, it's a product of evolution. It serves a function, even so far as all freak accident additions to life do.
And it's purpose is to let us fuck.
So all mental processes are on some level primitive and libidinal. The more ancient parts of the brain that govern emotion and 'sensation' are worth studying and separating from the components that analyze and think like a computing machine.
Once we understand the essence of conscious emergent properties and intentional states more soft-problems of conscious like how does one think or 'know' become trivial.
>>7910527
You are talking like "Muh feels" to say that these are only "Philosophy Feels".
>>>/x/
If you post here, the general consensus is that consciousness is a chemical process that takes place on an entirely physical level.
>>7912073
what model of reality do you know that doesnt involve infinity in some way?
>>7915144
subjective experience?
we are all "preprogrammed", but we are capable of making our own "scripts", or ways that we interpret an experience or make use of it. We also derive our "programming" from our ancestors, so different animals were calculate and manipulate different inputs in a different way.
If I'm wrong, then I don't think I know what you mean by subjective experience.
>>7914987
i also would like to know the origin of this webm
>>7915366
>>It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.
>>7915381
that's a fair point, but life's pleasures and why they pleasure us are hardly a part of consciousness.
I enjoy music because predicting the tune gives a sense of accomplishment.
I'm pretty sure colors just have to do with how we chose what was food and what wasn't.
Either way, I'm pretty sure most of everything that we do habitually can be traced back to evolutionary cause-and-effect
>>7915396
Sure. I don't think we disagree really.
But the point I'm trying to make is that all of those evolutionary needs could have been met, without subjective experience being involved. We could just be programmed to eat and fuck, and our race would persist. And we are programmed to do these things, but we also have subjective experience of them, which seems necessary. This subjective experience seems to just be a kind of observer. Our goals and desires are driven by neurotransmitters and hormones etc. but we still have this internal movie of it all happening, just watching as life unfolds.
>>7911934
B8/8 m9
>>7915357
because there are no "things", nothing can be "limitless", so the concept of infinity, in any of its forms or definitions, fails to explain reality. by that definition you could say that we don't "exist" either, but that's just semantics because we're still here anyway. this simply goes to show that language can't help you understand this topic and may actually be a huge obstacle.
>>7915438
you didnt answer my question.
>>7915441
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=model+of+reality+that+doesnt+involve+infinity
>>7915396
>that's a fair point, but life's pleasures and why they pleasure us are hardly a part of consciousness.
They are a product of evolutionary ties. There's a reason you are and feel the way you are. For instance
>I enjoy music because predicting the tune gives a sense of accomplishment.
You enjoy music because it has societal connotations and serves a purpose to instill values and aesthetics that cultivate a sense of dialectic rhythm within you. Whales, dolphins, and marine mammals have been observed to have evolved sharing similar gestures. It's basically like colorful Peacock feathers but with sound, and much more complex.
That's why we genuinely like good music and not nails scratching on a chalkboard.
>Either way, I'm pretty sure most of everything that we do habitually can be traced back to evolutionary cause-and-effect
This however, leads us to the biggest gap in our understanding of all.
As put >>7915405
We don't really have any understanding of Consciousness in evolutionary terms or why it exists, what purpose it serves, or why we're not purely rational, subjectively unfeeling creatures that act like ants. Effectively, questions of hard conscious are one of the few functions that cannot be explained by evolution. Why didn't early cells and primitive organisms just act as "Intelligent automatons" without their sensory data integrated quo consciousness like mentioned here
>>7915194
? It's still baffling.
>>7915455
we have emotion to prevent each other from killing ourselves into oblivion
>>7915438
You're not really grasping the abstract very well here. We need a concept of infinity because reality IS infinite.
It's us that are limited in our perceptions, and our limitations which fail to grasp reality proper. The totality of ontological reality already exists independent of our understanding to it.
>>7915457
Why weren't we just evolved and programmed not to do that, irregardless?
Most would say bugs don't have any complex emotional system. And yet the hive mentality keeps all units loyal and prevents slaughter.
Humans are only unique in Nature in that despite rational systems and an orderly universe, Man is unrealistically irrational.
>>7915447
you still didnt answer my question.
>>7912211
I agree with you, but you're missing the point.
Yes quantum mechanics defines each individual reaction that happened in the brain, but that doesn't mean that you need quantum mechanics to study the brain. We never needed quantum mechanics to make a vinegar and baking soda volcano. We don't even need quantum mechanics for the vast majority of circuit analysis.
In the same sense, someone doesn't need to know an assembly language to program a video game, but at the end of the day a video game can be run on multiple systems that have different assembly architectures just fine.
It is entirely possible that the brain can be analyzed and understood with relative confidence in the realm of biochemistry. Saying that since chemistry is emergent from quantum physics doesn't actually make any helpful assumptions.
>>7915066
Might I just mention that I'm an electronic engineer? So don't go calling me a retard and mention that we design them, you're the one who didn't understand my point.
The point is that when you design one specific part of a hierarchy, that doesn't mean you comprehend all behaviours that might emerge from it. We've designed computers, and yet some software behaviour stumps people. If you would have told an engineer of the fifties what computers could do now, he would've called you mad.
If you gave a phone with siri to someone of the middle ages, they'd think there was a conscious spirit inside, and no matter how much they tinkered they wouldn't understand.
There is absolutely no reason to assume biological consciousness requires something "extra" on a basic physical level, instead of assuming it is simply an emerging system like so much else we don't yet fully understand.
>>7910655
That's clearly a fox.
Who /lifelong/ fan here?
>>7915469
>It is entirely possible that the brain can be analyzed and understood with relative confidence in the realm of biochemistry. Saying that since chemistry is emergent from quantum physics doesn't actually make any helpful assumptions.
The brain can.
The Mind is another matter.
Although I'm not sure how quantum physics and most mysticism theorized about it can offer any real insight about it.
>>7915463
welp, I guess JESUS did it then.
PRAISE THE LORD
he is our saint
he is our savior
hollow bees by name
Consciousness is a meme pushed by people too scared to admit that we're basically just automatons and that there's no afterlife. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
>>7915492
/thread
>>7915460
the concept of "infinity" is meaningless to use or define because it's never going to give us any real understanding of how "reality" works. we need to change the way we understand existence, our minds are limited because we limited it ourselves with our own language.
>>7915465
i'm not babysitting you, if you want an answer to your question search it by yourself
>>7915473
>There is absolutely no reason to assume biological consciousness requires something "extra" on a basic physical level, instead of assuming it is simply an emerging system like so much else we don't yet fully understand.
It sort of does? Our understanding of something as abstract as consciousness is so primitive that it cannot be summed up to even what we're actually observing, other than by rough comparison.
In ancient times people thought the circulatory system could be explained like a river.
Then a damn, a valve, later a steam/pressure system and so on (Interestingly Freud thought the same of the mind). With the heart known to pump blood, this seemed like a tempting and obvious comparison. We couldn't understand how blood works until we actually knew what cells and cellular respiration. Every era people thought they could explain anatomy in terms of whatever technology was trending at the time.
What makes you so sure we can understand consciousness now just because we have computers and circuits? I'm not saying it has to be something extra-physical or immaterial, but we have not even begun to truly understand what creates the essence of thought and experience.
Even if it's an emergent property/system, it's one we haven't taken the reigns of interpreting 'correctly' yet, anymore then someone attempting to grasp human behavior by poking at a corpse.
>>7915501
>i'm not babysitting you, if you want an answer to your question search it by yourself
youre the one making an assertion, seems obvious you should be the one justifying it.
>>7915510
knowing you're an automaton does not unmake you as one
>>7915501
It's more meaningful to grasp the 'what' of reality than it is the how. But part of the how is the weird part.
Since 'how' is entangled with consciousness. There's an element of our awareness that resists the ontological completeness of reality altogether and that baffles scientists and philosophers.
> we need to change the way we understand existence, our minds are limited because we limited it ourselves with our own language.
This I agree with.
But at our present stage of understanding it is impossible.
Without resorting to something like mystical shaman voodoo, we have to re-approach the concept of 'understanding' and comprehension outside language altogether to impart any semblance of clarity towards understanding reality, and it's relationship to the mind.
But as is, the word reality is limited to humans by language even if it exists outside it. You are right in a sense, our linguistic limits are a huge crutch in ever grasping reality proper.
>>7915519
An automaton is just a dumb word.
It's as meaningless and undefinable as "Freewill" or "Conscious."
>>7909717
>>7915523
whatever you want, dude, kek.
this argument isn't about semantics
The first question that needs to be answered is this.
Is the conscious physical or non physical?
We can see, form accidents and diseases, that our consciousness is affected by physical phenomena, thus, the consciousness is physical in nature.
What is our consciousness? it is the relay of information form the conscious mind to the unconscious mind.
We are all in the matrix
HAIL CTHLULU
>>7915505
I'm not who you replied to, but I really don't see how your evidence is in any way supportive of your conclusion.
At best I get the impression that you're trying to put forth this idea of "futility" with regard to attempting to understand consciousness. Just because it took a few millennia to understand the circulatory system doesn't mean that everybody's efforts beforehand were in vain. Because without them, it may have taken even longer.
While I personally have my reservations with the other anon's analogy to circuitry, I think that you are taking a much larger leap of faith by asserting that there could be something "extra" involved with consciousness. I also think that, pragmatically, your approach is less useful regardless of which one of you is actually correct.
>>7915517
you haven't explained where do you want to get with this, you're just asking a question with no apparent reason at all
i'm not going to give you a concrete answer until you explain your point
>>7915563
my point is youre saying "infinity obviously makes no sense and everything is finite" without producing anything to support or even clarify your position.
>>7909605
Consciousness arises from a sufficiently complex electrical system, which could be translated as electrical impulses in an organic nervous system, or the artifical components of a "true" AI.
Unfortunately, nobody knows what "sufficiently complex" actually means in the context of consciousness.
>>7915576
>Unfortunately, nobody knows what "sufficiently complex" actually means in the context of consciousness.
so youre saying you dont understand what you said in the first sentence of your post. what a surprise.
>>7915586
I'm browsing 4chan on a Monday evening when I could and should be studying for classes that I most likely won't pass.
Of course I don't know what I'm talking about. But I can at least pretend I do when I'm on the I N T E R N E T
>>7915576
oh yeah then explain this.
Our eyes see images and the brain takes those light waves and turns them into electrical impulses which the brain interprets as an image. But what in the brain actually is there to view the image subjectively? that's the question, we can understand the mechanization behind it but there is still the problem of what these machinations serve, the soul, or the ghost, whatever you want to call it.
>>7915593
try pretending to what you talk about in class, thatll probably work better than that failed attempt at facsimile coherence.
>>7915548
I don't consider understanding consciousness futile, but I do believe understanding it only in purely physical processes is naive, as if one can derive a universal from a particular while ignoring what other artificial slights prop up that emergence. Properties aren't emergent in themselves, why should consciousness be any different?
When I say something Extra I mean a field of study or thought we haven't even begun to approach yet. We couldn't understand speech as sound waves and vibrations without linguistics. We cannot even grasp specialist conditions like autism without resorting to primitive behaviorism.
It's not useful but I'm trying to be pragmatically skeptical if intellectually honest about the limits of neurology and brain science in understanding consciousness. You are right about something however,
>Because without them, it may have taken even longer.
It's very much possible neurobiology will LEAD us to the study and methodology we need with a more profound understanding of the mind. But I'd never take it as a dead end to fully knowing what forms the mind.
If our current brain sciences are like classical physics, we haven't reached our relativity, sub-atomic world or quantum physics, so to speak of analogy. Not to say whether not QP has anything to do with the mind but that's the length we have to go.
>>7915575
actually anon, I never said that "everything was finite"
>>7915598
All we know is there is clearly some role. It's not magic.
Psychotropic drugs can alter one's mind, qualia and perceptions. That shows there is a physical component between our subjectivity and brain. We haven't delineated it yet. It's really complicated and hard to understand as of yet.
Keep in mind people that are lobotomized lose most functioning, but modern surgery can remove half of someones physical brain without lethal affect or even much loss of function.
So I'm inclined to believe there's something "Extra", even if it's not immaterial or some mystical essence like a ghost or soul.
>>7915625
>We cannot even grasp specialist conditions like autism without resorting to primitive behaviorism.
Is this a joke?
Neurology has made a lot of head way understanding the cause of autism. It's part genetics that they've isolated. The rest is damage to mirror neurons in the brain which causes a deficit in neural-feedback within the circuitry feedback loop.
>>7915244
>∎
one worthwhile character in this whole thread, unbelievable
This thread is why this board deserves to be put out of its misery. You can't crack down on the trolls because they look like idiots and you can't crack down on the idiots because they sometimes look smart enough and they don't have the faintest idea how much (or why) they need to lurk more and study more before they talk on a given subject.
Who Philos-trash here?
>‘The first step in resolving this deadlock is to invert the standard “realist” notion of an ontologically fully constituted reality which exists “out there independently of our mind” and is then only imperfectly “reflected” in human cognition—the lesson of Kant’s transcendental idealism should be fully absorbed here: it is the subjective act of transcendental synthesis which transforms the chaotic array of sensual impressions into “objective reality.”’
>>7915637
if anything, I implied that nothing was physical or material. I don't know where you'd get the other idea
>>7915649
which do you think i am, though, given that i posted what you consider the only worthwhile character in the thread? i have a feeling you consider me a troll
>>7915625
Then I suppose we differ at fundamental opinions of the consciousness. I grew up in a highly religious family and always being more of the mathematical and analytical nature, I quickly grew tired of the notion of divine creation. I don't find anything profound in the analysis of my own conscious besides complexity. I have found that, generally, people seem to act and react in fairly predictable manners and that the main limiting factor in our research and consequent understanding of human behavior (which I do consider to be the same thing as consciousness) is ethics.
I am not advocating this, but if we could experiment on humans as we do lab rats, I believe we would know an immense deal more about ourselves.
>>7915676
its not a misunderstanding, working from "there are no 'things'", the statement "everything is finite" is true.
>>7915683
if there are no things, then nothing can be finite because there are no things to be finite, and if there are no things, then nothing can be limitless either because there are no things to be limitless
that's why both physicalism and models of reality based on infinity can't help you understand existence, the very concept of "thing" is flawed / ambiguous, yet we still use it because we can't imagine a world without defining it as either "infinite" or material, not necessarily because we can't, but because language limits our understanding
>>7915660
I was exaggerating a bit, I think a few posts are good, mostly it's mess
I think your post was great in style but substance, and the one you replied to (>>7911934) was just the opposite-- they were trying to get across the relativity or arbitrariness of most knowledge but didn't have either the actual knowledge or the word skills to say it in a way that made sense
for example, in some esoteric areas of mathematics, 3 * 4 != 4 * 3 (although IIRC that's a different type of multiplication or relies on the numbers being complex or something, literal standard 3 and 4 are very predictable and familiar)
>>7915650
Reality may not be real but "they" will never let you get away with proving it.
>>7915714
do you know what a vacuous truth is?
im not saying i agree with the "there are no things", that sounds like hippie babble.
>>7915663
There's ethics but also feasibility. How do you have a control case? What's a normal, standard human? How do take a normal person and introduce an extraordinary circumstance (say, their child being shot) under controlled circumstances? How do you even know which variables are important to control for (because there are so many you're unlikely to control for all of them)? How do you observe a person's entire life, assuming you let it play out more or less normally? It would take decades.
I think you're being overly reductionist too. There's nothing profound in gaining great insight into every sentient (sapient?) creature ever known?
>>7915716
see i still cant tell whether you think im a moron or not, but im getting the impression you are a troll, or clueless yourself.
>>7915716
ugh, the little words
>I was exaggerating a bit, I think a few posts are good, mostly it's A mess
>I think your post was great in style but NOT substance,
fixed
>>7915724
at least it isn't as hippie as saying that "everything is infinite" as this can result on "muh consciousness" blabbery, or as short-sighted as saying that "things are physical and there are fundamental structures" as this vision doesn't really answer why a specific structure is fundamental nor what defines its properties
and yes, I'm aware of what vacuous truth means
>>7915727
I'm pretty much clueless on consciousness but I'm not pretending otherwise unlike 90% of this thread. That's why I said it's a case study in /sci/ being awful, it's Dunning-Kruger as fuck and it's full of wannabes (many of them not even science wannabes, they just want to know stuff about the human mind, not investigate it scientifically),
>>7915785
still dont see why you think my post was poor in substance.
>>7915776
oh, so you replace the questions about consciousness - which everyone experiences - with stuff about "what do you mean there are 'things' and 'space' is 'infinite' and its all just 'language' anyways". the most self-defeating bit of that is the language stuff. if language is useless, then your statements basically tell everyone to ignore you and your ill-defined opinions.
>>7915776
Unless you're literally asking for links to papers demonstrating what's fundamental and what's infinite, what you're driving at runs counter to basically the entire line of philosophy behind science. The whole point of science is that with consistent observations (especially as the result of testing theories), we can presume to know something about the universe. If *things* aren't "real" then our observations of them are meaningless, so it seems you're arguing against the principle we'll learn by watching them. To make that argument is to reject science, which is not so horrible, but the *science and mathematics board* is not really the place to do it.
(as to whether the guy you're arguing with is any more sensible, who knows)
>>7909717
/x/ post best post
>>7915802
>still dont see why you think my post was poor in substance.
because you didn't see that poster was trying to say that reality is complicated and unintuitive
>>7915840
his bollocks about arithmetic was straight up garbage, as is describing noncommutative algebra as esoteric. the bit about empiricism didnt even register because of how inane the other part was.
>>7915802
anon, I never even talked about consciousness except on a very small mention here >>7915776, and even then I only stated that because I assumed we stopped discussing seriously after you didn't really remark anything relevant here >>7915724
you're really misinterpreting me with your poor use of logic anon, even if my position is hard to express through words that doesn't mean you can't get an idea of what I'm talking about
>>7915873
>even if my position is hard to express through words that doesn't mean you can't get an idea of what I'm talking about
i wouldnt know, because so far youve either done a super-terrible job of doing it, or youve done it alright and your ideas are incoherent. have another go, maybe, just explaining your thoughts without referencing any specific post.
>>7915881
Say that reality is made of a fundamental structure, sub-atomic particles for example. The problem is, you haven't defined what is inside of these particles, so they're taken as being "fundamental". This obviously answers nothing, as nothing explains the behavior or properties of the particles nor why can't something else be fundamental. So ultimately, if they aren't made of something else (nothing), then reality is essentially made of nothing. Which is a meaningless conclusion, as we still exist somehow, even if we technically are "nothing".
Now take the "infinity" argument that there is no fundamental structure, and that reality is made of things that are made of smaller things that are made of smaller things, and so on indefinitely. The problem is, this still doesn't explain the behavior of anything we experience, and it doesn't explain how our lives take place in a set scale of size instead of an infinitely bigger or smaller scale of size. In other words, adding infinity still solves nothing.
Now, the question is: if neither materialism nor infinity are the answer, then what *are* we experiencing?
To say that we are experiencing something specific will drive us to the same models of reality mentioned before, as we will need to explain what this "something" is. From this, it's concluded that any answer given through language to explain this experience will fail, as they will always try to explain the experience as a "thing" composed of other "things".
That's why it's impossible to give an answer to this topic with the use of language.
Better now?
>>7909605
all matter is conscious to an extent.
>>7909625
>literally
dropped
>>7916039
I swear you're underage.
Vague logic gets you knowhere in life, kid. Wake up and face the facts. Focus on what is, no what can be.
>>7916082
Leave /sci/ immediately
/sci/ has been taken over by loonies and tryhard teenagers are here. You want your answer? It's right here:
>>7912281
Consciousness is a goddamn rainbow. Rainbows aren't real or physical, you know that right? As soon as you try to touch it or get too close it vanishes, alright? It's not deep or anything.
Consciousness is just an electrical rainbow your brain makes with synaptic computations.
>>7916039
The fuck are you on about?
Something that's not made of smaller things doesn't really exist? Why?
Neither of those models will work? Why not?
What does that have to do with language? How can you answer a question without any kind of language? How does language have anything to do with the way the universe works?
What in the fuck kind of half-baked philosophical framework are you basing this on and why didn't you state it in the first place?
>>7916039
so what i can glean from this post is that your claims are roughly these:
- materialism is nonsense because because it gives us infinite regress because for some reason you dont explain there cant possibly be a smallest/indivisible elementary particle
- infinite regress is nonsense because it doesnt give us a foundation to start working from, and it doesnt tell us why we are the size we are, the latter of which is somehow a relevant remark because of reasons you dont mention
- somehow language is a hindrance
what really seems to happen is that your diffuse language is a hindrance to you getting a clear mental model of reality, or possibly you using language to muddy up your own thoughts.
lets turn this franchise around. what do you think are suitable methods to get to a good understanding of reality?
>>7916181
So this would imply that all electrical phenomenon experience some level of qualia.
I'm not opposed to this idea actually, but it also has some very weird implications. Basically a kind of panpsychism. It very much validates some of these hippy ideas that "the whole universe is conscious maaaann"
This thread man
>>7916275
>>7916546
>>7916275
>>7916546
Materialism can't help us understand reality because you can't define what the fundamental "structure" is or its properties: it can only refer to itself, because it can't be "made" of something else, because the entirety of existence is what is made of this "structure". Following this logic, we can argue that anything can be fundamental: why can't dogs, pizza, or a cell be fundamental? What determines the behavior of a fundamental structure? How can something that isn't made of anything exist? This model of reality leaves many questions unanswered, which means it’s ineffective and doesn't provide us with an understanding of existence. It shows us that the very concept of “thing” (material object) is flawed and ineffective at explaining reality. That’s how problematic semantics are in this topic.
>>7916275
>>7916546
Infinity is also a questionable concept when applied to a model of reality. I don’t get why you’re pretending it isn’t (assuming you support an “infinity” model, seeing your posts) as its very definition is based on something that is impossible to measure with our minds, so to use it as a model of reality is pointless because it won’t help you understand anything. First of all, it can’t help us because it doesn’t explain the behavior of the reality we’re experiencing, nor what determines its properties. And secondly, regarding the size stuff that you didn’t get: imagine that the universe has always existed (an infinite amount of time). However, that doesn’t explain how we are experiencing reality in a set present of time instead of a completely different present, because if there is an “infinite” amount of presents to be experienced, then why is this one in particular the one taking place? In the same way, this can be applied to size: if there is no fundamentality and everything is infinite, then how can you explain that we are experiencing reality in this particular scale of size instead of a completely different one, if there is an infinite amount of scales of size in which we could’ve lived? Don’t blame me if you still don’t understand this; that would be your own lack of analytical skills.
>>7916275
>>7916546
The problem with language is that it keeps being used to try to explain reality in the same way these two models fail to do. If you keep defining a word –any word-, you will have to define the words used in your definition and so on, until you hit self-referentiality. This is why basing your understanding on language is futile: you will eventually need to address direct experience, which is something that precedes words. Now, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing when we’re discussing concrete things, like “Who killed X”, “What did the cat eat”, or when there aren’t involved a huge number of concepts with poorly-defined abstract significances. Which isn’t the case in this topic, as “consciousness”, “exist”, “reality”, “infinity”, “material” and “thing” are words that are terribly open to different interpretations due to their poor definitions / huge abstraction. That’s why it’s impossible to have a productive, meaningful debate about this topic, and any attempts of trying to understand consciousness and reality through language is useless.
>>7909605
>How does something as immaterial as consciousness come from unconscious matter?
>implying matter is unconscious
>>7909605
How does something immaterial like fire come from wood?
>>7917478
>Materialism can't help us understand reality because you can't define what the fundamental "structure" is or its properties
Neither can anything else. You might think your pet philosophy describes the universe, but it doesn't. Only science can do that.
![Colouring_pencils[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/O2K18U1.jpg "Colouring_pencils[1].jpg")
If you think consciousness isn't real, you may as well go ahead and say colors aren't real.
>>7917478
>Following this logic, we can argue that anything can be fundamental: why can't dogs, pizza, or a cell be fundamental? What determines the behavior of a fundamental structure?
This doesn't follow, and I can't discern logic in it - which should worry me if there was logic in it, since I'm trained in a mathematical discipline. what role does empiricism have in these questions, working from your notions?
>How can something that isn't made of anything exist?
this still assumes your inconclusively derived assertion that there is no "thing" - not that that would be a well-defined assertion.
>This model of reality leaves many questions unanswered
you havent even described the model you are talking about, and you havent given any specific criticisms. all you posted were three iterations of "nothing smallest because thats self-referential and why would it be", which is a pretty meager objection.
>>7917482
>Infinity is also a questionable concept when applied to a model of reality. I don’t get why you’re pretending it isn’t (assuming you support an “infinity” model, seeing your posts) as its very definition is based on something that is impossible to measure with our minds
what do you mean "impossible to measure with our minds" - would finite numbers be any better? can you "measure" 10^100000 "with your mind"? can you even "measure" the number of cells in your body "with your mind"? how is finitude with humongous numbers any better in this regard than infinity - which is a concept that crops up in mathematics all the time and is handled with relative ease by trained professionals?
>First of all, it can’t help us because it doesn’t explain the behavior of the reality we’re experiencing, nor what determines its properties
....because?
>>7917482
>And secondly, regarding the size stuff that you didn’t get: imagine that the universe has always existed (an infinite amount of time). However, that doesn’t explain how we are experiencing reality in a set present of time instead of a completely different present, because if there is an “infinite” amount of presents to be experienced, then why is this one in particular the one taking place? In the same way, this can be applied to size: if there is no fundamentality and everything is infinite, then how can you explain that we are experiencing reality in this particular scale of size instead of a completely different one, if there is an infinite amount of scales of size in which we could’ve lived? Don’t blame me if you still don’t understand this; that would be your own lack of analytical skills.
im not blaming you for my analytical skills, im blaming you for being vague and not arguing for any of your assertions, just reiterating them together with various loosely connected thoughts.
now about the whole "why are we the size/time/form we are" - you seem to be tricking yourself with your language here. the fact that you can pose this question does not mean that the answer will be anything more satisfying than "that's just the way it is". if you throw a fair 20000-sided die, the answer to "why did it land on 17340" is "that's just what happened". that may be unsatisfactory, but that doesn't mean it's the wrong answer.
note that in all of my posts, i haven't argued for a single idea. all i've done is raising objections to your thoughts, because they seem to be poorly thought through. so maybe we can clarify things here a little: how do you see reality? if your answer is going to be >>7917489 "language doesnt help here, i cant tell you", then why are you even talking? if thats not your answer, then maybe you can frame what you consider your most important conviction in as coherent a manner as possible.
>>7917478
>Materialism can't help us understand reality because you can't define what the fundamental "structure" is or its properties
If my short look at it is correct at all, you're missing the point like I thought. If you're looking at the universe materialistically *it's not materialism itself that defines what's fundamental, it's examination of the materials.*
>>7917482
>Infinity is also a questionable concept when applied to a model of reality. I don’t get why you’re pretending it isn’t (assuming you support an “infinity” model, seeing your posts) as its very definition is based on something that is impossible to measure with our minds, so to use it as a model of reality is pointless because it won’t help you understand anything.
You don't know anything about the actual mathematical implications and uses of infinity, do you?
>In the same way, this can be applied to size: if there is no fundamentality and everything is infinite, then how can you explain that we are experiencing reality in this particular scale of size instead of a completely different one, if there is an infinite amount of scales of size in which we could’ve lived?
because there aren't an infinite amount of scales reality could play out in with the laws of physics we have
>>7917489
>stuff about abstraction and concreteness
>Now, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing when we’re discussing concrete things, [...] or when there aren’t involved a huge number of concepts with poorly-defined abstract significances. Which isn’t the case in this topic, as “consciousness”, “exist”, “reality”, “infinity”, “material” and “thing” are words that are terribly open to different interpretations due to their poor definitions / huge abstraction.
It is the case on a fucking science board, you define them by the definition used by whatever scientific discipline studies them most closely.
>>7909605
watch this:
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you_explain_consciousness?language=en
TED talk.. i know i know, he summarizes it nicely tho.
>>7909605
>something as immaterial as consciousness
You are wrong and you know it.
Fuck off.
>>7912048
>You have no idea what quantum mechanics are, do you?
Actually, you don't. Quantum mechanics refers to the behaviour of small particles. Small as in at the quantum level.
And what is everything made of?
>>7918175
sub-quantum something(s)?
>>7909605
It doesn't. Consciousness is not immaterial. Specific configurations of matter are conscious.
>>7916181
>Consciousness is just an electrical rainbow
I'm going to use this explanation from now on with little to no context.
>>7909605
>come from unconscious matter
Prove it.
>>7909625
none of these
>>7909605
How does a car antenna capture a radio signal when its properties are so different from the incoming signal? Consciousness come from itself we are just the antenna receiving the signal of life.
>>7917618
I'm not responding to the first three green texts because I'd have to spend a lot of time clarifying these concepts and I'm definitely running out of energy for that.
>what do you mean "impossible to measure with our minds" - would finite numbers be any better? can you "measure" 10^100000 "with your mind"? can you even "measure" the number of cells in your body "with your mind"? how is finitude with humongous numbers any better in this regard than infinity [...]
There is a huge difference between big numbers and infinity. Infinity is endless. Numbers aren't. You can't form a "mental image" of the number of cells of your body, but you can understand it has a determined number of them. Can you do that with infinity? No, because it's not a number: it's endless. Which is why your die example here >>7917640 doesn't work: you've replaced infinity with a measurable unit.
> ... which is a concept that crops up in mathematics all the time and is handled with relative ease by trained professionals?
We are talking about infinity *literally* being a part of the universe, not just in equations as an abstract concept.
>....because?
Self-explanatory. Science will always find new smaller structures with different behaviors and we will never reach a fundamental structure, which means we will never determine the laws and behavior of the entirety of reality as a whole. The existence of the "level" we're living on has to be -in logical terms- possible due to a sum of all the properties of the smaller structures. But we can't sum it, because infinity is literally endless. So how do you explain how is our "level" taking place, if there are no fundamental laws to determine its existence and properties?
>>7917640
>maybe we can clarify things here a little: how do you see reality? if your answer is going to be >>7917489 "language doesnt help here, i cant tell you", then why are you even talking? if thats not your answer, then maybe you can frame what you consider your most important conviction in as coherent a manner as possible.
What I've been arguing the whole time was not my own vision of reality or what's the best way to look at it, I was arguing that language can't help us understand reality, and these "models of reality" are an example for why it's ineffective. There is far too much abstractness on these topics, so the ideas get distorted. There is the problem of identity in language, shown when arguing about fundamentality (self-referenciality, what is "to be",).
To put it short -although not effectively-, I see reality without words. I don't address semantics to understand ideas; I address direct experience, because all understanding is based on it, and all ideas are languageless. I don't worry myself with questions like "What is the self", "what is truth", "what is god", "what is consciousness" and the like. Things are much, much clearer that way, although I'm still trying to find a way to explain why.
The reason for why I'm talking is because I *need* to find a way to express these thoughts in the best way possible, and I'm still working on that. My thoughts are clear, and I know what I'm into: the problem is that I cannot express them precisely due to the very nature of these thoughts, which involve the deconstruction of language I mentioned before.
I'm fairly sure you won't agree with all of this, which I understand because this *does* sound like pseudo-intellectual bullcrap, which is why I absolutely hate having to explain this through words: they don't express what I actually think.
Either way, I'm pretty tired of discussing this and I'm busy with other stuff so Ilet's put an end to this talk.
>>7911301
This. Until we can clearly define what it is we're even talking about, we literally cannot get a conversation off the ground about it.
>>7911904
there is no difference between facts in science and theories. All knowledge in science is provisional.
>>7911908
>1+1=2 holds always true.
That's because we have defined what 1 and 2 mean. It makes no sense to say logical facts are "stronger" than theories when they're not even in the same ballpark. Logic is purely definitional.
>>7920716
sounds zen to me
the more you try to represent or express something the further it gets from the reality that you see
which means that your reality is subjectively objective by default
ergo, you are all faggots to me and its entirely correct
>>7915625
>but I do believe understanding it only in purely physical processes is naive
Its 2k16 and people still believe in immaterialism.
This is why we can't have nice things. This is why we still sit on this earth while in one parallel universe we already build some sort of travel system. This is why people donate to regressive leftists like Anita S. This is why not enough people donate to NASA. This is why we are governed by a democracy and not a technocracy. You are the reason why human progression is on a very slow pace.
